today seems to be the day for lens testing. my shelves are getting cluttered with lenses and i think it's time to free up some space. before i sell any lenses i figured i should do a little testing to make sure my feelings about the lenses are based on reality. so here is a near field test of (nearly all) my lenses between the 35mm and 55mm. for every lens i took one shot at each aperture focused on the center of the frame and one shot focused on the corner of the frame (this means conclusions can be drawn about corner sharpness on a 1.5x crop camera but not flatness of field). all lenses have the same shutter speed per aperture and the same white balance settings (this makes color casts quite clear). i refocused every time i stopped down till f/5.6. at apertures smaller then f/5.6 i didn't bother refocusing because i figured focus shift would be negligible. all shots were focused through liveview on a NEX camera on a tripod and shot with a 10 sec timer. the lighting is the same for all shots.There are no modern lenses in this test for reference because i don't have any good modern lenses. going from left to right the lenses tested are: contax g 35mm f/2, olympus pen f 38mm f/1.8, contax g 45mm f/2, minolta MD 45mm f/2, nikkor HC 5cm f/2 ltm, minolta MD 50mm f/1.7, minolta MC 50mm f/1.4, pentax takumar SMC 50mm f/1.4, olympus pen f 42mm f/1.2, and the canon FL 55mm f/1.2.
here is the whole frame shot: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/5412789746_c34c95b7b4_o.jpg
and the center crops: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/5412756478_407d63baed_o.jpg
and the corner crops: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/5412151223_df07cd2b76_o.jpg
conclusions: i still really like my canon FL 55/1.2. it is sharper in the corners at f/1.2 than almost all the other lenses are at f/2! the pen f 42/1.2 is no slouch either but has some nasty CA stopped down and some distortion. the contax g 45 is unsurprisingly superb but the contax g 35 gets its ass handed to it by the lowly pen f 38mm f/1.8 in everything except contrast. the rokkor mc 50/1.4 that i love the bokeh of but have always found a little soft and low in contrast wide open turns out to have much better corner performance than my takumar 50/1.4 which is sharper and more contrasty in the center wide open. it seems that my tak is actually much yellower than i thought (i've never noticed any yellowness looking at white paper through the lens) and worse in the corners than i thought. judging by the color of the pen f 42mm i would guess it also has a radioactive element. as expected the contax lenses have a warmer color and the rokkor lenses have a cooler color. finally the old nikkor ltm lens really sucks in the corners and the combination of small front element scratches and ancient coating technology make for extremely low contrast.
thanks, for future testing i think i need to have a scatter plot like the one in the corner crops in the center of the frame as well. that type in the center crops is too big.
also, i'm quite disappointed by the corner performance of a number of these FF lenses compared to the half frame lenses. what do those FF lenses look like on a FF corner?!?
The Contax 45/2 looks like the killer app if you don't need the last couple stops. Otherwise the penF is the one-lens winner, if we're talking purely sharpness. The FL is probably the best for FF applications.
Rendering-wise will tell a different story perhaps. Thanks for running this. I've hunted down the article as well, but it's not my field.
sebboh wrote:
also, i'm quite disappointed by the corner performance of a number of these FF lenses compared to the half frame lenses. what do those FF lenses look like on a FF corner?!?
Usually pretty sharp, but I've noted my OM 50/1.4 loses a lot at close focus in the corners. Medium-longer distances it holds together a bit better.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
(mumbles off to buy a fl 55 1.2 for my 5d)
my best $50 lens purchase yet.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
The Contax 45/2 looks like the killer app if you don't need the last couple stops. Otherwise the penF is the one-lens winner, if we're talking purely sharpness. The FL is probably the best for FF applications.
Rendering-wise will tell a different story perhaps. Thanks for running this. I've hunted down the article as well, but it's not my field.
it's not really my field either, thats why i was willing to rip it up. my free print subscription that seemed like such a good idea a few years ago has resulted in a huge amount of clutter.
both pen f lenses actually show noticeable field curvature at short distances which really isn't represented by this test. i'm curious to see if the contax 35 will perform better near infinity.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
(mumbles off to buy a fl 55 1.2 for my 5d)
If you haven't shaved your mirror, I think it's not possible to get close to infinity with the FL. Unfortunately the average evilbay price has already went WAY above $50. More like $250. BIN prices even start around 250 euros... :/
sebboh wrote:
...i'm curious to see if the contax 35 will perform better near infinity.
Me too, although probably just to try to make myself feel better, since this is the lens I'm using. I did find it a little odd that the Contax G 35 looks a little worse at f5.6 than at both f4 and f8 in the center.
douglasf13 wrote:
Me too, although probably just to try to make myself feel better, since this is the lens I'm using. I did find it a little odd that the Contax G 35 looks a little worse at f5.6 than at both f4 and f8 in the center.
that could just be due to my focusing between f/4 and f/5.6, i'm not actually sure which of those apertures would look sharper if i jacked up the sharpening a bit. the 35mm is rather tricky to focus at close distances - it seems to have a fair amount of spherical aberration and focus shift as well as some distracting laCA and loCA and maybe a bit of astigmatism. there is always a chance i could have a bad copy too, though the MTFs look broadly consistant with what i'm seeing.
AhamB wrote:
If you haven't shaved your mirror, I think it's not possible to get close to infinity with the FL. Unfortunately the average evilbay price has already went WAY above $50. More like $250. BIN prices even start around 250 euros... :/
such is the way with all the bargain lenses. once enough people realize they're good they cease to be a bargain. i think this one still has some room to increase in price, though the need for a mount conversion may keep it down a bit.
AhamB wrote:
If you haven't shaved your mirror, I think it's not possible to get close to infinity with the FL. Unfortunately the average evilbay price has already went WAY above $50. More like $250. BIN prices even start around 250 euros... :/
There's some that sneak under. I woulda coulda shoulda bought it a while ago when they were hovering nicely at 100. Doh.
Then again, I'm not sure I'd use that big of an aperture. Waffling between the fl and a CZ 50/1.7, since most everything I shoot is 2.8 or slower.
Daniel Heineck wrote:
Then again, I'm not sure I'd use that big of an aperture. Waffling between the fl and a CZ 50/1.7, since most everything I shoot is 2.8 or slower.
the c/y 50/1.7 is a fair bit more compact and probably contrastier. it doesn't have near as nice a focus ring as the canon IMO though. i actually don't use the canon often at apertures wider than f/2 - faster apertures i find the bokeh works well for industrial sorta scenes, but otherwise i'm not too fond of it and use one of my other fast lenses. at f/2 or smaller the bokeh is extremely smooth and well behaved.
I paid £113 for my Fl55 couple month ago and count it a very good buy. My FD NEX adapter is out of order though - the little screws fell out, need to buy some tiny screws.
Thank you for the effort, Sebboh! always nice to find out the relative performance of the lenses, well at least at close distances.
sebboh wrote:
the c/y 50/1.7 is a fair bit more compact and probably contrastier. it doesn't have near as nice a focus ring as the canon IMO though. i actually don't use the canon often at apertures wider than f/2 - faster apertures i find the bokeh works well for industrial sorta scenes, but otherwise i'm not too fond of it and use one of my other fast lenses. at f/2 or smaller the bokeh is extremely smooth and well behaved.
Edgars Kalnins wrote:
I paid £113 for my Fl55 couple month ago and count it a very good buy. My FD NEX adapter is out of order though - the little screws fell out, need to buy some tiny screws.
Thank you for the effort, Sebboh! always nice to find out the relative performance of the lenses, well at least at close distances.
i wish it were as easy to keep variables consistant across shots at longer distances. i'll just have to rely on real shots to judge the lenses for landscape use. actually i prefer to judge lenses more on actual images than these types of tests in general, but i wanted to see if i was missing anything before i sold a lens. it turned out i was, i found out some new useful information on the performance of the tak and rokkor f/1.4s and that my pen 42mm might need a little treatment to cure yellowing.
There must be something seriously wrong with that Nikkor 5cm f/2. It looked pretty crappy at almost all apertures.
As an aside, I'm seeing some fairly strong chromatic aberration from the Canon FL 55 f/1.2, as compared to the rest of the lenses in the corner test. This seems to mirror my experience with the Nikon 50 f/1.2 Ai-s as compared to slower 50mm lenses. At almost all apertures, I noticed a red/blue chromatic aberration that I didn't see with my 50 f/1.4 or 55 f/2.8.
I planned on doing a 50mm shootout myself. Looks like you beat me to the punch. BUT, I do have 7 50-ish lenses you haven't tested, so we'll see how that goes
kakomu wrote:
There must be something seriously wrong with that Nikkor 5cm f/2. It looked pretty crappy at almost all apertures.
it is actually decently sharp in the center (though never great) it just has ultra low contrast. there certainly is something wrong with it though. it had massive fungus on it, which i had removed, and it has lots of little scratches in the front element.
kakomu wrote:
As an aside, I'm seeing some fairly strong chromatic aberration from the Canon FL 55 f/1.2, as compared to the rest of the lenses in the corner test. This seems to mirror my experience with the Nikon 50 f/1.2 Ai-s as compared to slower 50mm lenses. At almost all apertures, I noticed a red/blue chromatic aberration that I didn't see with my 50 f/1.4 or 55 f/2.8.
I planned on doing a 50mm shootout myself. Looks like you beat me to the punch. BUT, I do have 7 50-ish lenses you haven't tested, so we'll see how that goes
sweet, i look forward to seeing it. from the pictures i've seen and the descriptions i've read it seems like the nikkor 50/1.2 and canon FL 55/1.2 are very similar in performance and drawing style.
sebboh wrote:
sweet, i look forward to seeing it. from the pictures i've seen and the descriptions i've read it seems like the nikkor 50/1.2 and canon FL 55/1.2 are very similar in performance and drawing style.
Eh, I returned the 50 f/1.2 shortly after getting it. A combination of buyer's remorse and a feeling that its resolving ability and low-light ability weren't much better than the 50 f/1.4 (plus a lot of gunk inside the lens that I didn't know about when buying it) made me return it.
BUT, I do have an Olympus 55 f/1.2. It doesn't have the CA problem, but manages to smear everything quite a bit...
I did find it a little odd that the Contax G 35 looks a little worse at f5.6 than at both f4 and f8 in the center.